Community Mediation Trends and Needs: a study of Virginia and Ten States
Download 235.54 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Values
- Community Mediation in the Ten States Surveyed
- Community Mediation in Virginia
- Case Data for Virginia’s Community Mediation Centers, 1998-1999
Scope of StudyThis study focuses on four critical elements that define the development and diversity of community mediation programs: funding models, innovative services, legislation, and coalitions. The study sought a wide range of different models for comparison and evaluation. The IEN staff contacted a wide range of individuals involved with community mediation, including attorney mediators and non-attorney mediators, center and coalition administrators, local and state public sector employees, advocates, and academics. The study also sought to document the relationship between community mediation and the justice system. The study documents how centers with close ties to their local courts function and how centers with substantial non-court related caseloads fund and develop their programs. Recent studies have concluded that close relations between community mediation and the justice system raise a number of concerns regarding the integrity and viability of mediation. 3 The impact of private mediation and forms of mediation other than community mediation were beyond the scope of this study. ValuesCore values identified by IEN as integral to this study are:
Community Mediation in the Ten States SurveyedThis study analyzed community mediation funding models, innovative services, legislation, and coalitions in the following ten states: California, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas. The study found both substantial similarities and dissimilarities between community mediation programs and centers in these states. Some of the states surveyed have been very active in supporting community mediation statewide. For example, North Carolina’s 26 community mediation centers and Maryland’s ten centers receive extensive state funding in addition to seeking financial support from diverse additional sources. The New York state legislature directly funds community mediation centers that serve all 62 counties in the state. New York community mediation centers received over 44,000 case referrals in the 1996 fiscal year involving over 100,000 people. Similarly, Michigan has provided funding to twenty-nine programs in the state. Although cost savings are difficult to document, some studies show that community mediation can result in substantial cost savings for state governments. In Michigan, for example, the Office of Special Education estimated that, in FY 1999-2000 alone, community mediation services would save the state $897,700.94 in averted court hearings and expenses. NAFCM statistics gathered from programs throughout the country demonstrate that 85 percent of mediations result in agreements between the disputants. Similarly, studies show that disputants uphold these agreements 90 percent of the time. As a testament to disputants' high satisfaction with community mediation, 95 percent of participants indicate that they would use mediation again if a similar problem were to arise in the future. Community Mediation in VirginiaIn 1982, Virginia’s first non-profit mediation organization, Harrisonburg’s Community Mediation Center, was created. Today, there are nine non-profit community mediation centers across the Commonwealth. In 2001, to maximize resource sharing and to heighten the visibility of community mediation in Virginia’s communities, the centers joined together to form the Virginia Association for Community Conflict Resolution (VACCR). Together, these centers provide education and conflict resolution services to increase the capacities of families, individuals, youth, organizations and neighborhoods to effectively resolve conflicts themselves without relying on government to provide a solution or remedy. These centers and their programs save time and money as well as relationships. They enable community members to pursue a range of decision-making strategies, which eases the burden on our court system. They also incorporate a broad range of neighborhood, community, and workplace perspectives to help parties reach resolution. Support from the Virginia Supreme Court, the state judiciary’s Futures Commission, and the Legislature has been critically important to the community mediation centers’ successful development and expansion. In FY 2000, for example, the state legislature provided $458,785 to fund court-referred mediation contracts. Since 1994, funding for these court-referred contracts has increased, on average, by 28 percent annually. However, because the court contracts were expanded to include private practitioners, court contract funding for community mediation centers between 1994 and 2000 has, for some, increased by less than 10% annually, while for others it has stayed at roughly the same levels. However, Virginia’s nine community mediation centers need substantial funding and legislative assistance to maintain their early intervention and conflict prevention mediation services. Funding remains a critical issue for community mediation programs across the country. Even in states like Maryland and North Carolina that provide extensive community mediation program funding, centers and coalitions must rely heavily on outside funding sources like grants, member fees, and fee-for-service provisions to sustain their programs. While funding for court-referred mediation remains the predominant form of funding for mediation programs, it remains a reactive solution. Prevention efforts and early access to mediation services in communities and workplaces are the first line of defense for reducing and mitigating conflicts in our society. Their importance must be recognized.Case Data for Virginia’s Community Mediation Centers, 1998-1999Directory: articles articles -> Ancient Ecologies and the Biblical Perspective articles -> Tour de France by owen mulholland articles -> 1-techniques for airborne radome design, volume 1 Authors articles -> God's Perspective on Man articles -> Mythopoetic language in the psalms articles -> Executive report of key results of recent research on supplier development strategies and outcomes articles -> Egeny Mironov (born 1966) is a Russian film and stage actor articles -> Intro to Journalism September 30, 2005 articles -> For immediate release usta nominates katrina m. Adams as chairman of the board, ceo and president Download 235.54 Kb. Share with your friends:
|